MDC

Organization
Mentions
795
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
392
Also known as:
MDC legal counsel MDC in Brooklyn Brooklyn MDC MDC Los Angeles MDC/BOP

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00002731.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 16, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim concerning the detention conditions of her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that Maxwell's harsh treatment at the MDC, including constant surveillance and deprivation, is a detrimental overreaction by the Bureau of Prisons following Jeffrey Epstein's death. The letter claims these conditions are severely impacting Maxwell's health and her ability to prepare for her defense, amounting to what Maxwell feels is "Pretrial Punishment."

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00005262.jpg

This document is page 3 of a legal filing dated October 18, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues they have received voluminous discovery materials (over 14,000 pages) from the government very recently (Oct 11-12), leaving insufficient time to review them before filing motions in limine. The document details the logistics of the hard drive deliveries to counsel in New York and Colorado, and to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC, while noting that some materials provided to Maxwell were incomplete.

Legal filing / court document (letter motion)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00005244.jpg

This legal document, filed by the Government, responds to a request from defense counsel for expedited delivery of legal mail to a defendant held at the MDC. The Government argues against the request, citing the burden on the MDC's legal department, and details a timeline of events where a hard drive delivery was delayed by one day due to an 'institutional emergency' at the facility on October 13, 2021.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00005241.jpg

This is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated October 15, 2021. Sternheim complains that the government's explanation for the severely delayed delivery of Maxwell's legal mail at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) is inadequate and hinders Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial. The letter argues that the MDC is capable of timely delivery, citing the extensive resources used to monitor Maxwell, and criticizes the government's refusal to facilitate special delivery for evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00005231.jpg

This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 346) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues that incompetence at the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) is hindering Maxwell's ability to review vital trial materials and prepare for her defense. Sternheim characterizes the detention conditions as 'extraordinary and onerous' for a nearly 60-year-old non-violent detainee and warns that inaction may erode constitutional rights and delay the trial.

Legal correspondence / court filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00005230.jpg

This legal filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense counsel, Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell's right to prepare her defense has been compromised. The document details how the Government refused to hand-deliver a hard drive of evidence to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), instead using FedEx, and how the MDC then delayed giving the materials to Ms. Maxwell for several days. Counsel requests the Court's intervention due to the MDC's alleged inefficiency and mishandling of legal mail.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00005229.jpg

A letter dated October 14, 2021, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a court order to compel the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) to deliver legal mail to Ghislaine Maxwell within 24 hours of receipt. Sternheim details specific incidents of delay, including a hard drive withheld for two days and legal mail deposited on October 2 that was not discovered until October 7. The letter also alleges potential evidence tampering, noting a 'questionable bar code sticker' found on legal mail that the MDC Unit Manager eventually returned to counsel.

Legal correspondence / court filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00005204.jpg

This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, is a joint request from the prosecution (Government) and the defense to the Court. Both parties ask that only jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday be selected for the trial. The defense estimates its case will last approximately two weeks but notes this may change after reviewing late-night disclosures from the Government, which the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had not yet received due to delivery issues at the MDC.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002790.jpg

This document page argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail, asserting that proposed conditions, including renouncing foreign citizenship and strict asset monitoring, are sufficient to mitigate flight risk. It contends that her continued detention is prejudicial, impairing her physical health and ability to prepare for trial, while a footnote details specific issues with discovery access, mail delays, and unsafe visiting conditions at the MDC.

Legal court filing (motion/brief)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008797.jpg

This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on January 3, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order directs the prosecution and defense to submit a joint letter by January 10, 2022, proposing schedules for post-trial motions and sentencing. The order also addresses the defense's inquiry about a COVID-19 booster shot for Maxwell, instructing her counsel to follow the procedures of the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center).

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020357.jpg

This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, details the allegedly abusive and overly restrictive detention conditions of Ms. Maxwell at the MDC. It claims she is subjected to constant, invasive surveillance, has been physically abused by guards, had property damaged, and had private information leaked to the press. The filing argues that these conditions are unwarranted and that her monitored communications with family demonstrate strong ties to the U.S., contradicting claims that she is a flight risk.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020354.jpg

This is page 2 of a court filing by the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The document addresses the Court's inquiries regarding the defendant's housing conditions at the MDC. It explains that she is housed alone due to safety concerns ('high-profile case', 'nature of charges') and her own expressed fears of the general population. It also states that the MDC cannot provide her with an eye mask because they are considered contraband, though she may use other non-contraband items to cover her eyes.

Legal filing / court document (page 2 of government response)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020348.jpg

A letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter raises concerns about Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC, specifically sleep deprivation caused by guards checking her with flashlights every 15 minutes. It also reports a recent incident where Maxwell developed a 'black eye' of unknown origin, leading to threats of punishment (SHU) by MDC staff if she did not explain the injury.

Legal correspondence/letter to judge
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020346.jpg

This is page 2 of a court order by Judge Alison J. Nathan dated May 14, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The order denies Maxwell's request to override BOP security check protocols, stating the request is unsubstantiated, but urges the MDC to consider reducing sleep disruption and admonishes them to ensure protocols are neutral and necessary. The document references previous letters from defense counsel regarding detention conditions.

Court order / legal ruling
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg

This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00011602.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a sentencing hearing for a defendant named Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her attorney, argues for a lenient sentence by highlighting her age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive contributions while incarcerated, such as tutoring fellow inmates in the MDC. The attorney contrasts her good character with the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002816.jpg

This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a filing in a criminal case arguing against the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) discovery requests. The filing contends that requests for communications about co-conspirator Jean Luc Brunel, fee agreements with victims Annie and Maria Farmer, Annie Farmer's complete teenage journal, and materials from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program are irrelevant and improper 'fishing expeditions' for impeachment material. The document cites case law to assert that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the relevance and admissibility of the requested evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity